06 June 2013 12:14 AM

Samantha Power and the UN are a perfect match

And so it came to pass. Samantha Power has finally made it into the top tier of the Obama administration.

Power is reputed to be one of President Obama’s closest advisers. Until now, she was the relatively lowly director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council. With her reported imminent appointment as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, what I predicted at the beginning of the Obama presidency has now happened: that in a second term, he would promote to the front rank those who were so extreme and so dangerous to the well-being of America and the civilised world that in his first term, so as not to frighten the horses, he would keep them in the lower ranks out of sight.

Well, we should all be frightened by Samantha Power.

She is the living embodiment of the way in which ‘human rights’ have morphed into their absolute opposite, and instead of providing a protection against tyranny have been turned into the anvil upon which freedom and justice are being smashed.

A supposed expert on genocide, having argued that nations have a moral obligation to prevent it, she was asked in 2002 as a ‘thought experiment’ what she would advise the US President to do about the Israel-Palestinian problem ‘if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide’. She responded to this already disturbingly loaded question:

‘...what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

‘Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat.” [Sharon/Arafat] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention’ [my emphasis].

Clearly, despite the careful nods to a (disgusting) moral equivalence Power was not talking about invading the disputed territories beyond Israel’s borders to prevent the Palestinians from committing genocide or major human rights abuses against Israel by wiping out the Jewish national homeland -- an aim to which their leadership remains committed in word and deed.

No, she was talking about invading Israel to prevent a genocide, or major human rights abuses, (her language wasn’t clear, but the point is the same), against the Palestinians -- something which, in any rational universe, not only could not possibly be laid at Israel’s door but also held out the possibility that Israel might commit atrocities against people who themselves make Israel the victim of precisely such atrocities (and indeed, commit them regularly against other Palestinians).

She also suggested that defending Israel was not a cause that should be dear to all Americans and indeed all decent people everywhere, nor that the great majority of Americans do indeed thus support Israel, but that the only people who might be alienated by invading Israel would be American Jews who exercised tremendous political and financial power over American politics.

Subsequently she said of these comments that she couldn’t remember what she had said and didn’t understand what she had meant.

Maybe a clue lies in what she told the New Statesman during Obama’s first presidential campaign:

‘Of course I regret them... I can’t even believe they came out of my mouth.’

Here are some of her other activities to date.

In April 2003 she signed a Statement on Cuba, initiated by the Democratic Socialists of America member Leo Casey calling for the lifting of trade sanctions against Cuba.

Along with Susan Rice (the former UN ambassador, now appointed Obama’s National Security Adviser, heaven help us) and Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, Power is considered a key architect of the disastrous Libyan intervention.

And despite her advocacy of attack or invasion to prevent threatened genocides, she has sneered at concerns about the race to build a nuclear bomb by Iran, which has repeatedly threatened genocide against the Jews of Israel, as a figment of the war-mongering Republican imagination.

I just saw a rebroadcat on CSPAN2..... Brilliant !!!!!
Multi-culturalism( on steroids!!) liberal guilt and reverse discrimination. These are VERY powerful in the US . We want to insure equality of OUTCOMES in Society rather than Equal Opportunity. Reverse Discrimination got so bad the US Supreme Court in the BAKKE case, ruled that the Cal. Uni system of quotas was discriminating against whites.
GLOBAL WARMING: The Smithsonian in DC has a quiet chart of temps over the last 1 million years. There has been a slight uptick over the past 100 years but within normal variance. Krakatoa: East of Java 1883 A massive eruption that caused global cooling for years...Iceland on steroids. As someone who spent 1 month per year in "the city" (London not NY) at Lloyds I must say....Brilliant....PS wrt "West Bank"..Israel was ATTACKED by the Arabs.That is how they got the W. Bank and Gaza.

The reason the Palestinians are there is that the Israelis did NOT carry out a genocide. When faced with deadly attackers in the country legally allocated to them, they ejected them and expected them to be taken in by surrounding countries.
Those countries - Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq - expelled millions of Jews who had to be housed somewhere, So they came into Israel, Yet these hostile nations have still not allowed the Palestinians to go and live there, where the Jews were thrown out. Why? Because they want it both ways,
They want to throw out the Jews from Syria, Egypt etc and ALSO take over Israel., their ultimate plan is one of genocide, have no about it.
If you resent Muslims in their millions coming to live in Britian you are called a racist. So what is a Palestinian who resents millions of homeless, refugee post-war Jews coming to live in Israel? Answer: a hero to the left wing.

She could have tried to suit her actions to her words. I doubt she ever considered it. Brave talk is fine for electioneering or trying to get noticed. It is not consistent with seeking a job in the US government. Brave action was never the intention. The words I think date from a while ago. Maybe she decided to trade conscience for influence. Or maybe exposure to government changed her mind for her. We can't tell, however shrewd we think our guesses. What we can say is that the invective against her here and elsewhere is misguided. It is those who seek to persuade Israel to negotiate a halfway equitable peace who should complain about her.

And it turns out she was the White House point-person for Israel on such matters as Goldstone, killing Turks on the high seas, and Palestine seeking belated recognition, on all of which the White House neutralised the UN. Those Israel uses for these discreet consultations are very happy with her as is the Israeli government. Still she has to be warned, or others by example, that her words must suit her actions.

You still seem to believe that Iran wants a nuclear weapon (which is fully understandable in tems of a deterrent considering the constant attacks and aggression they face) despite the opinion of the intelligence agencies that say any such programme was halted years ago and is not to be restarted.

You also reference this claim about wiping Israel of the map which has clearly been shown to be incorrect.

Strange that you mis-represent the Iranian stance and yet ignore Israel's criminal acts.... and can still use the word 'bigotry'.

In all things it is important to question our presumptions. I suggest you give it a try.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that Ms. Power as well as Ms. Rice are being appointed to their respective positions because no one who is actually qualified to hold these posts wants to be associated in any way with this administration.

That the US continue to aid & abet Israel is vital if it is to persist in its defiance of the law. That is why the lobby goes for each & every US legislator or official who deviates even by so much as a jot or tittle from the approved script, even if their deviation will make no practical difference to US policy. It is perhaps intended to look as if the vicious attacks are launched spontaneously by different independent commentators, each of their own accord, but it can't help but look highly disciplined & coordinated when all the attacks are so synchronised & share so many killer arguments & killer quotes. It appears as if every participant knows what role they are to play. They do their duty, for the good of the cause. The gist of the attack is deceit, but that doesn't matter, it is beside the point - say it loudly & say it often & you'll drown out rational discourse.

I can understand the anxiety of the Israeli people. The Arabs can lose many times and their borders and countries will still be there. The Israelis only have to lose once and it is game over. The UN won't sanction another Israel..
That doesn't justify all the Israelis do though. They should lift the blockade as should the Americans on Cuba.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.